“It is difficult to give an overall judgment on the entire Nordio bill. We must distinguish from one rule to another. It is wrong, however, to criticize the abrogation of the abuse of office. Those who know the courts know well that the corrections to be made are different”. This was stated by the former president of the Chamber Luciano Violante.
Is it right to abolish abuse of office?
“In my opinion, it should have been eliminated a long time ago. Often a fundamental error is made in the approach. The verification of legality of the Public Administration is up to the administrative authorities, not to the magistrates. The latter, on the contrary, should only try to find out who is responsible, when they have a report of a crime on the table. There is, then, another aspect that demonstrates how this choice of the government goes in the right direction”.
Which?
“The huge number of acquittals for this crime shows that, at times, it is used as a sort of lever to enter private or public confidential circuits, to acquire the maximum possible information to argue that there may have been an infringement. The judge, however, should not ascertain “if by chance a crime has been committed”, but should act once he has news of the crime. This is the reason why, from the beginning, I thought it was right to abolish it. Many times people have tried to manipulate it, but they have never managed to find a fair solution so that the accusation might not impact on people’s reputations. After five years you are acquitted, but nobody notices. And they do not take into account that in all other countries criminal prosecution is discretionary and therefore only takes place in a few cases, while in our country it is mandatory and we always proceed”.
When addressing certain issues, should we go beyond political colors?
“If a person has to appear before three judges who will explain to him why there is a restrictive measure once morest him, something is not working. Keep in mind that according to a ruling of the Court, the judge who intervened in one phase of the process cannot intervene in subsequent phases. This reform, on some points, seems to have been made by someone who does not know a judicial system, a court.”
What do you think, instead, regarding the crackdown on wiretapping?
“We are not facing a gag law, but the aim is to protect the so-called “involved”, that category discovered by some media outlet, including those who are not defendants, nor suspects, but whose names are given during the trial. Unfortunately, a headline in a newspaper is enough to make you a participant in a crime. Knowing that these figures can disappear soon is only positive. We are facing a real abuse by reporting journalism, the kind that takes the pieces that the Prosecutor’s Office passes to it, publishing them as it receives them. Why transcribe the content of a wiretap, if it is not useful for saying what happened?”
For Minister Nordio, this change is a helping hand to administrators, who will no longer be afraid when they sign a document. Do you agree?
“It is also true for officials, for anyone who works in a public body. In Italy, unfortunately, an anonymous complaint is enough to trigger an investigation.”
Another priority for politics is the separation of careers. Is it really that urgent?
“It’s nonsense. Careers are already separate. We are talking regarding a paleontological problem, which criminal lawyers faced thirty years ago. Today it has no reason to exist. Keep in mind that regarding 45% of the requests of the PMs are rejected by the judges. If there were a subordination to the PMs we would not have had such a high percentage. Then there is the question of professional experience, which would be mortified by dividing careers. In France and Germany, having been a PM first and then a judge or vice versa, is considered a positive element. Finally, I would like to add another fact regarding rights.”
Which?
“Bringing together the PMs in a single corporation, self-managed, with all the powers they have, is a danger to the freedom of citizens. It’s anything but a guarantee rule.”
What do you think, instead, regarding the Toti case?
“Before speaking, you need to know the documents, the details of the individual events. Therefore, I cannot say anything relevant. The only certainty is that we are talking regarding a very long period of house arrest, unless they want to induce Toti to resign as president of the Region. I do not know exactly if this is the intent. If so, however, it should be clearly expressed by the judicial authority, it should be explained. Otherwise, it is clear that there are doubts.”
When we talk regarding justice, the controversy on the agenda is that of the currents in the judiciary. How to overcome them?
“Expressing opinions within an associated component is not a problem. It is, however, when you make a career just because you are a member of a current. The function of the currents is anomalous when they want to determine who should be the prosecutor in Rome, Vicenza or Taranto. If they contribute to the debate, on the contrary, it is a good and right thing”.
#removed #abuse #office #earlier #Tempo
2024-07-14 22:42:25
